The framework agreement signed between Israel and Lebanon on June 26 at the White House, under United States mediation, is not just another agreement that isn’t worth the paper it is written on. It represents a major political step toward reshaping the security reality along the northern border, and perhaps even a foundation for a future peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon. This agreement is vital for Israel and, at the same time, deals a severe blow to Hezbollah and the Iranian Axis of Evil.
In essence, the agreement anchors the intent of both nations to formally end the conflict, address its root causes, and establish neighborly relations and peace. Ostensibly, this appears to be an ambitious goal, given the power dynamics between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Armed Forces, and between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah as a political and economic force within the Lebanese state. In practice, however, the agreement’s true significance lies precisely in the clauses dictating the path toward achieving this sublime objective: the core purpose of the framework is to purge Iranian influence from Lebanon and prevent a reality where terrorist organizations hold the state’s future hostage.
Concretely, the most crucial point for Israel in this agreement is the granting of freedom of action to the IDF. Israel will continue to maintain a security buffer zone, the Yellow Line, and retain full military freedom of action to remove threats, as long as Hezbollah is not fully disarmed.
Israel has declared that it harbors no territorial ambitions in Lebanon, and that removing the security threat will obviate the need for an IDF presence on the ground. Accordingly, a gradual and monitored process was agreed upon for the withdrawal of IDF forces from designated areas in southern Lebanon, transferring full security responsibility over these zones to the Lebanese Armed Forces. Nevertheless, the agreement explicitly states that the Israeli withdrawal and the transfer of authority are strictly contingent upon the complete disarmament of Hezbollah and any other “non-state armed group” in southern Lebanon.
Another positive implication of this agreement lies in the timing of its signing, prior to the finalization of a definitive agreement between Iran and the United States. To a large extent, this American-mediated agreement has the power to dictate the rules of the game in the Lebanese arena based on Israel’s security interests rather than Iran’s. The agreement anchors Israel’s guiding principle at the present time: the decoupling of arenas between Iran and Lebanon, and between Lebanon and Hezbollah, alongside the recognition of the vital nature of the IDF’s military presence in southern Lebanon as a protective belt for northern communities and the State of Israel.
This is a blow to Iran, which since the conclusion of Operation Lion’s Roar has been exerting political and military pressure to guarantee the principle of the “unification of arenas” between Iran and Lebanon, including a willingness to project force against Israel and Gulf targets. Iran’s goal has been to pressure the Americans into forcing Israel to halt its military operations in Lebanon and withdraw IDF forces from southern Lebanon. The current agreement sets the rules of the game in the Lebanese arena in a manner entirely different from what Hezbollah and Iran had hoped for.
Broadly speaking, the agreement heralds a healthy new strategy for Israel regarding diplomatic accords. This is perhaps the first time in Israel’s diplomatic history that an agreement does not dictate a concession of territory or the taking of security risks at the expense of Israeli citizens. On the contrary, the agreement places the security of northern communities at the top of its priorities, recognizes the IDF’s presence on the soil of an Arab state, and prioritizes Israel’s security interests above any other clause in the text.
Another refreshing innovation is the demonstrated ability to maneuver simultaneously, rather than sequentially, in both the diplomatic and military spheres. Diplomatic moves can be driven forward in the midst of military action, without any contradiction between them. This is how the Americans operate against Iran, and it is how Israel is acting against Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria.
The agreement serves as a political security belt for Israel’s military security belt. It will grant Israel regional and international legitimacy to maintain its military presence in Lebanon for as long as necessary; it will safeguard Israel’s interests in Lebanon in any future agreement between the United States and Iran; and above all, it will ensure the safety of the northern communities.
Ultimately, it must be noted with due humility that an agreement, as good as it may be, is not the be-all and end-all. It is simply an additional tool in the campaign, and it is no substitute for the continuation of an uncompromising, activist security policy.
